Brooches (fibulae) are frequent finds at sites of Roman military installations, sometimes second in quantity only to pottery or Roman military equipment. Until very recently, these objects of personal adornment have often been asso
ciated with women. Research by archaeologists and dress specialists – especially and surprisingly by female scholars – has pointed out that men, particularly Roman soldiers, also wore brooches, possibly on a much greater scale than presumed.1 The idea that brooches constituted the integral part of soldiers’ military dress has not, however, received much enthusiasm in literature on the Roman army.2 This paper therefore aims to divert attention to these important objects by introducing the idea that brooches were as relev
ant as any military equipment worn on the battlefield, parade ground or in a fort.
BROOCHES AS IMPORTANT PART OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Soldiers wore brooches and wore them as part of their mil
itary canvas. Unarmored soldiers or soldiers not in a military campaign would wear a socalled camp dress, con
sisting of a tunic and belt, nailed sandals, and a cloak pinned on a right shoulder with a brooch.3It is now widely accepted that particular brooch types were directly associ
ated with the Roman military, such as knee, penannular and Pshaped brooches.4 In particular, the concept of knee brooches as ‘soldiers’ brooches’ has been firmly entrenched in contemporary scholarship, since these brooch types have predominantly been uncovered at Roman military forts of the 1st–3rd century AD in the Empire’s northwestern areas, and their distribution follows the line of Roman north
western frontiers.5
Though brooches were clearly essential as clothes fasteners, their purpose as simple cloak pinners can be con
tested.6 Brooches’ highly visible positioning on military dress – at the eyecatching shoulder level – invites multifa
ceted debates regarding their significance. Such positioning indicates that brooches were not only used for pinning, but also worn to be seen. Though passive, functional tools used
to secure clothing, brooches had a secondary, decorative function, for these shiny, silvery objects were adorned with various patterns, motifs, and symbols.7The ornamental po
tential of brooches was thus likely ‘fully appreciated and exploited’, which made them more than ‘purely utilitarian object[s]’.8
Within Roman army dress studies, only crossbow brooches of the late 3rd–4th century AD have been recog
nized to have similar decorative potential. Though initially merely another type of brooch worn by soldiers in the late 3rd century, crossbow fibulae became more elaborately decorated objects in the 4th century, at which time they signified membership in the army and administration and were worn exclusively by military and civilian officials of high status.9 It is, however, unlikely that brooches’ orna
mental and symbolic potential as status symbols emerged over the course of the late 3rd–4th century; instead, it might be better dated to much earlier periods. Allason
Jones points out that Roman emperors sought sculptural portraits that depicted them as ‘wearing a military uniform with a disc brooch holding their cloaks’,10and that this was possibly ‘a stock image of the emperor and show[ed] him wearing artefacts that were not copied by the general populace, either because they were considered peculiar to the emperor, people who lived in Rome or the military’.11 Yet, the image of a man wearing a cloak pinned at the right shoulder with a disc brooch is not confined to emperors.
Depictions of brooches on tombstones and sculptural re
liefs in the 1st–3rd century in the Roman West show that predominantly men of high status associated with the Ro
man army were depicted with round or oval disc brooches with a raised central rosette (Fig. 1).12It is a striking, how such depictions resemble those of the 4th century in which highstatus military and civilian officials are shown wear
ing cloaks pinned at the right shoulder with enormous crossbow fibula. Though generally assumed that ‘the P
shaped type [. . .] was a precursor of the crossbow brooch, a type which we know was worn by military personnel’,13 it remains questionable whether the crossbow brooch as a
JRMES 17 2016, 121–127
of the late 1st–3rd centuries AD in the Roman West
Tatiana Ivleva
status symbol derived from a depiction of a sharply gendered disc brooch that appears in sculptural reliefs of the High Ro
man Empire. In this sense, masculinity, status, and military association may have been projected by such conventional images of the disc brooch, which was considered to be an appropriate emblem to represent power.
If so, then did disc brooches closely connect with and constitute part of a Roman military masculinity and status identity, while simpler knee brooches signified more ordin
ary soldiers of lower status? This question is worth considering, given that various brooch types, including the disc and oval ones, were found in significant quantity at many military sites. Such a variety of styles, types, and forms might indicate that soldiers sought to communicate particular messages about their positions, affinities, and preferences by choosing to wear a particular style of fibu
lae or be depicted with it.14 At the same time, the occurrence of several brooch types on sites associated with the Roman army justifies the necessity for soldiers to wear different styles on a daily basis, which further suggests that brooches were considered an integral part of Roman army dress and equipment.
Given such a variety, in what circumstances would sol
diers wear these objects? On a daily basis, during active campaigns, during patrol duties, or otherwise? Or would soldiers only opt to wear brooches for the craftspeople who carved their funerary monuments?
HOME AND AWAY: BROOCHES AS PART OF SOLDIERS’
DAILY AND OCCASIONAL ACTIVITIES
To explore the circumstances in which soldiers wore brooches on a daily basis, the contexts in which they were found needs to be investigated.15 If we plot the brooches across a hypothetical auxiliary fort, it appears that brooches can be found in every corner of a military installation (Fig.
2). The following finds serve as examples: brooches from a German frontier fort Saalburg were found ‘next to the ar
mory’ and near the socalled bakehouses, where food was prepared for the garrison.16 In other forts, brooches are common finds in the bathhouses and barrack blocks, in
cluding centurion quarters, as well as on the streets between barrack blocks (praetentura and retentura).17
It is worth noting that quite a substantial amount of brooches has been found in ramparts. Rubbish pits and ramparts are the usual places to look for brooches taken out of circulation, since these areas contained disposed debris and rubbish from a fort.18Such is the case for fragmented and incomplete brooches discarded due to their state. Yet, moreorless complete brooches were found in layers asso
ciated with the rebuilding activity of ramparts at forts on the British and German frontiers.19The brooches found are in excellent states, though their pins and catchplates have been broken, which can be considered to indicate that they were broken when worn, which suggests that the brooches were dropped during the building or reconstruction work of
ramparts.20That brooches were easily lost and that military carelessness was common is clear from the other above
mentioned contexts, which moreover signify the fact that fibulae formed a part of the soldiers’ everyday clothing.
Brooches are not, however, concentrated only within the physical walls of a fort; they are also frequent finds in milecastles, turrets, and fortlets. An analysis of small finds from smaller military installations on the German and British frontiers suggests that, among many artifacts such as weapons, military equipment, pottery, items of personal adornment and jewelry, brooches have been usu
al finds.21A more detailed analysis of brooch distribution in turrets and milecastles on Hadrian’s Wall indicates that a variety of types have been found, some with enamels and most of them mostly complete.22 This analysis Fig. 1: A tombstone commemorating Aurelius Ingenius, a watchcommander of Legio II Parthica, Qal’at al Madiq, Syria (LUPA 132843). © Ortolf Harl (1995)
prompted AllasonJones to suggest that ‘soldiers not only wore brooches [in turrets] but also lost them with a great deal of unmilitary carelessness’.23
All of this evidence confirms the everyday nature of brooches; they were worn on a daily basis in camp, during the building activities of the fort, and by soldiers on patrol in outposts. Yet, their wear was not limited to the noncom
batant periods in the lives of the military. Archaeological evidence points to the possibility that fibulae were also worn during military conflicts, possibly during fighting and on battlefields.24 The example of Kalkriese, a site of a Varus battle in AD 9, is the most compelling; it has pro
duced roughly 80 brooches so far.25 The majority of the Romanrelated finds were concentrated north of the ram
part, which is generally assumed to be a Germanic entrenchment built as a trap for the Varus forces and next to which actual fighting occurred.26 Since it is clear from these finds that the Romans tried to storm the wall, the presence of brooches near the rampart area might indicate that some soldiers still wore cloaks pinned with brooches during the attack.27
Altogether, there is little doubt that brooches formed an important part of Roman military equipment and played an active role in the everyday activities of soldiers. However, it remains unclear how soldiers received these important cloth fasteners. The question of supply pertains, since its answer may give explanation why soldiers owned a variety of styles and types to choose from and to wear. Yet, this is
not as straightforward a topic as it might seem, for it ap
pears that brooches reached military forts in a variety of ways rather than came from one centralized distribution center or only from local workshops.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Brooch parts (pins, spirals, and catchplates) are most li
able to break. Doubtlessly, some reparation of broken brooches occurred onsite at forts, possibly in fabrica or smallscale smithies set into the annexes or ramparts.28 Such workshops were responsible for producing metal materials such as nails, fittings, and weapons, and for re
pairing armor, which may have included brooches.29 Moreover, reparations did not only end with pins and springs; brooches with enamels may have also been re
paired. At Birdoswald, a glass lamp that may have been used to produce enamels, which were usually applied to decorate brooches manufactured in Roman Britain, was found.30Possibly, one of the Birdoswald fort’s workshops was responsible for repairing brooches that had lost their enameled decorations. This workshop or another may have even been involved in producing small quantities of enameled fibulae, given that the supply of enamels might have been sparse at this frontier post. Furthermore, though circumstantial, evidence points to the repair and smallscale production of small artifacts, brooches in
cluded, on military sites.31Housesteads fort on Hadrian’s Wall produced evidence of metalworking debris, which shows that ‘manufacture, rather than simply repair of equipment, was taking place there. Examination of the moulds indicates that the objects being made were belt buckles or suspension loops’.32 In the Niederbieber fort on the Upper German limes, the majority of brooches and their various parts were found in a pit situated next to a building identified by excavators as fabrica, the ground of which was covered with ‘the rests of white and red clay used for the molds’.33
Another way to acquire brooches has been through vari
ous regional workshops. In his analysis of brooches from the legionary fortress of Wroxeter, Mackreth indicates that the brooch site spectrum ‘reflect[s] a movement [of a le
gion] from the southeast [in Britain]’.34 As such, this movement also indicates that soldiers bought brooches on the go or that supply could have been shorttermed de
pending on the length of time that a unit was positioned at a particular territory, which may have even spanned a couple of months.35In this scheme, an army on the move could have replaced the lost or broken brooches from local sources, which suggests the need for a constant supply of brooches and that units stocked up on fibulae from the nat
ive supplies before moving into areas where there was no tradition of wearing and producing brooches.36 When stranded in particular areas for years, the units might have received brooches from a number of local workshops. The variety of brooch types, forms, and ways of decorating Fig. 2: Distribution of late 1st–3rd century AD brooches
from forts Birdoswald, Chesterholm (Vindolanda), Housesteads, Niederbieber, and Saalburg. Image of a fort after FISCHER, 2012, 257. © Joep van Rijn.
them found at any given military site suggests that their supply was not limited to one local workshop, but that fib
ulae reached forts from many different small workshops that did not necessarily operate within close proximity to the forts, as well as by mobile craftspeople.37
Moreover, there is enough evidence to suggest that some brooches were brought by soldiers from their previous postings. Soldiers either wore them during their transfer or kept them as part of their personal possessions,38as indic
ated by the brooch spectrum at a couple of military sites.
Forts in the Roman province Germania Superior, such as Köngen, Saalburg, and Zugmantel, had in their assemblage brooches ranging from the ‘Gallic’ and ‘NoricoPannonian’
to those worn in provinces of Raetia and Britannia, in the eastern Danube provinces, and the German Barbaricum.39
FUTURE WORK
The present paper only touches the tip of an iceberg. Nev
ertheless, it has shown that brooches as part of the military canvas were ‘more than meets the eye’.40 Much work still needs doing in order to fully comprehend what different forms and types of brooches actually meant and what kind of messages their wear communicated. At this point, particular attention should be paid to the status communicated by brooches in Roman military dress, es
pecially the abovementioned possible association of the depicted disc brooch with military masculine identity and the daily practice of wear of disc and oval brooches, which are often assumed to be associated with women.
Other questions worth considering are whether there were any differences between brooches worn by legionary, auxiliary, and numeri soldiers,41 and what kind of rela
tionship existed between the brooches and buttonandloop fasteners known to have been in simul
taneous use in 2nd century AD? Analyses of brooches’
metal compositions to investigate the particular isotopes can aid in illuminating where brooches were made, which would contribute to studying their production and distri
bution. From another perspective, brooch distribution on a given military site can provide a fuller picture of how space was used in military installations on a daily basis, as well as what was worn when particular activities oc
curred. In general, instances of personal dress accessories can elucidate the lives lived on Roman battlefields, and the more detailed the analysis of brooch typology, the clearer the movement of particular units through provinces and the nature of military garrisons. All of the above can contribute to our knowledge of the people who crisscrossed the known Roman world with the Roman army.
It is to be hoped that this essay brought to the surface the overall significance of these small finds in the daily routines of Roman soldiers, as well as indicated the value of brooches and the necessity to study them within Roman military equipment scholarship.
NOTES
1 ALLASON–JONES, 1995; ALLASON–JONES, 2013, 27;
ALLISON, 2013; COOL, 1983; ECKARDT, 2005; SWIFT, 2011, esp. 212–16. MACKRETH, 2011 is, so far, the only scholar in this line who is a man.
2 There, brooches continuously received attention in a few sen
tences, which affirms their role as clothes fasteners; cf.
BISHOP & COULSTON, 2006, 111; JAMES, 2004, 62; and SUMNER, 2009, who discuss brooches only in relation to cloaks. For a notable exception, see FISCHER, 2012, who de
votes approximately five pages to the development of military brooches. See also past RoMEC Proceedings, where brooches have appeared only in contributions discussing finds from military installations or sites associated with military activity, but not as independent military dress accessories.
3 HOSS, 2012, 29.
4 MCINTOSH, 2011, 159, after BAYLEY & BUTCHER, 2004, 179; SNAPE, 1993, 20.
5 ALLASON–JONES, 2013, 27, after COOL, 1983 and ECK
ARDT, 2005; ALLISON, 2013, 72–4; MACKRETH, 2011, 237; SWIFT, 2011, 212–16.
6 Brooches are essentially buttons that hold two pieces of clothing together. Yet, buttons themselves sometimes fulfill additional roles; for instance, buttons worn on the military uniforms by soldiers of Napoleonic army had both numbers and images on them. Inscribed with a hunting horn and a number (e.g., 6 or 9), a button indicated that the uniform be
longed to a soldier in the 6th or 9th light Infantry regiment.
Similarly, American Civil War uniform buttons were in
scribed with insignias of a soldier’s regiment and rank, as well as the state seal.
7 ALLASON–JONES, 2005, 121.
8 JOHNS, 1996, 147.
9 COLLINS, 2010, 63–64 after HEURGON, 1958 and KELLER, 1971; SWIFT, 2000, esp. 230–1. Cf. COULSTON, 2004, 143.
10 ALLASON–JONES, 2013, 27.
11 ALLASON–JONES, 2013, 25.
12 LUPA 3593 (tombstone with cursus honorum of a legionary centurion); LUPA 862 (tombstone of a legionary with double pay); LUPA 3268 (tombstone of a scriber of a legion
ary legate); LUPA 3338 (tombstone of a prefect of a cohort);
LUPA 3745 (tombstone of a legionary veteran); LUPA 3542 (tombstone of a beneficiarius attached to tribune of a co
hort); LUPA 3594 (tombstone of a legionary soldier); LUPA 4691 and 13284 (two tombstones of a legion’s tesserarii, or watchcommanders); LUPA 8172 (portrait of a standard
bearer); and LUPA 10796 (bust of a custos armorum, or a keeper of armor).
13 MCINTOSH, 2011, 162. Also see BAYLEY & BUTCHER, 2004, 183–4; COLLINS, 2010, 64.
14 Though this paper’s space is limited, the role of some brooches’ types in projecting particular messages has been discussed elsewhere. For brooches with religious associations, see CRUMMY, 2007; for possible ethnic connotations, see
IVLEVA, 2011, IVLEVA, 2012, and ROTHE, 2013. For an argument that zoomorphic brooches had particular ideological meaning, see ALLASON–JONES, 2015.
15 How brooches entered archaeological records needs to be giv
en close attention. Brooches might have been lost by careless soldiers or simply discarded. There is a fine line between los
ing objects and simply throwing them away. For instance, fibulae finds in rooms may come from filling these rooms once they fell into disuse or when they were given new floors (Stefanie Hoss, pers. comment). However, we should not rule out the possibility that some objects, while being worn, fell into places where the owner could not reach them.
16 BÖHME, 1972, near armory (no 825) and near bakehouses (nos 232, 953, and 1070). Cf. also an umbonate brooch found at a fort Birdoswald on Hadrian’s Wall in a rampart building that served as a bakehouse in period B (WILMOTT, 1997, 280–1).
17 For bathhouses: at Saalburg, see BÖHME, 1972 (no 375);
at Vindolanda, see SNAPE, 1993 (nos 179 and 187); and at Weissenburg, see WAMSER, 1986, 107. For barrackblocks:
at Housesteads, see ALLASON–JONES, 2009, 431–6, con
text H13 corresponding to building XIII, where seven brooches were found (nos 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24, and 25). On the streets: at Saalburg, see BÖHME, 1972 (nos 107, 516, 534, 539, 540, 562, 567, 604, 681, 712, 741, 794, 822, 823, and 1172).
18 RUSHWORTH, 2009, 78.
19 Cf. disc brooch from Housesteads found in the northern rampart (ALLASON–JONES, 2009, 434, no 22); trumpet brooch from Birdoswald (WILMOTT, 1997, 278, no 55); or another trumpet from Saalburg (BÖHME, 1970, 7, no 8).
20 Cf. WILMOTT, 1997, 88: ‘The finds from this period [2 of a rampart] are few in number and all appear to be the result of casual loss. Small personal possessions such as coins, brooches, counters, and the button and loop fastener could all have been dropped during building work’.
21 JILEK & BREEZE, 2007, 208.
22 ALLASON–JONES, 1988, 217; SNAPE, 1993, 119–20.
23 ALLASON–JONES, 2001, 22.
24 Joanne Ball, University of Liverpool, who conducts doctoral research on the archaeology of Greek and Roman battle
fields, was the first to point out to me that brooches, among many other small objects, are frequent finds on Roman bat
tlefields. Cf. BALL, 2014.
25 HARNECKER & MYLO, 2011, 7.
26 WILBERSROST et al., 2007, 78.
27 ROST & WILBERSROST, 2012, 33–4, for brooch distribu
tion on the battlefield, see insert 12.
28 That pins, springs, and catchplates were repaired in Roman times is evident from the marks on some of the brooches (compiled from the Portable Antiquities Scheme database).
For the reparation of pins, springs, and chords, see: BUC
3CF745 (Northhamptonshire); FAPJWA67042 (Darlington);
BERK609396 (Oxfordshire); HAMP702323 (Wiltshire);
PUBLICD4D221 (Monmouthshire); DENOC1FFA4 (Not
tinghamshire); PUBLIC0A0494 (Glamorgan); SUR71F334 (Surrey); HESHE825B8 (Staffordshire); WMIDF92DC6 (Derbyshire); WILT56D935 (Wiltshire); SUR6E3DE7 (Sur
rey); YORYMC51044 (Yorkshire); BHFA0950 (Hertfordshire); SUR7443F0 (Surrey); NMGW8D3F02 (Newport); SOMDOR755 (Dorset). For the reparation of catchplates, see: YORYMB1B603 (Yorkshire); NCL476F76 (Lincolnshire); YORYMBBFE46 (Yorkshire); GLO886DF4 (Gloucester); NMSCBD917 (Norfolk); NMS522F91 (Nor
folk); YORYMB1745 (Yorkshire); YORYMB1744 (Yorkshire).
29 WILMOTT, 1997, 165 on fabricae in auxiliary forts; cf.
SIM & KAMINSKI, 2012, 25; FISCHER, 2012, 265.
Vince van Thienen from Ghent University believes that pins and catchplates of some crossbow brooches found at a site at Oudenburg fort, Belgium were produced onsite, whilst the brooches themselves were manufactured else
where. Van Thienen is conducting a scientific examination to investigate this, but the results were unavailable at the time of this paper’s submission.
30 WILMOTT, 1997, 277.
31 Direct evidence of the brooches’ production within the fort boundaries comes from Sofie Vanhoutte’s (Flemish Heritage Agency) research on the fort of Oudenburg. Vanhoutte presented a poster at the XVIIIth RoMEC entitled ‘Brooch production at the Roman fort of Oudenburg (Belgium) in the later 3rd century AD.’
32 RUSHWORTH, 2009, 65.
33 GECHTER, 1980, 592.
34 MACKRETH, 2002, 91.
35 MACKRETH, 2002, 93.
36 MACKRETH, 2002, 90.
37 BUTCHER, 1977; esp. MCINTOSH’s 2013 research into the distribution of the Wirral brooches that has shown that objects travelled from the area around the Wirral Peninsula in Northwest England to the forts on Hadrian’s Wall and beyond into the southern Scotland as trade items and as tem
plates with craftspeople.
38 SWIFT, 2000, 208; SWIFT, 2011, 212–14; cf. also IVLEVA, 2011; IVLEVA, 2012.
39 For Köngen, see LUIK, 1996; for Saalburg and Zugmantel, see BÖHME, 1972.
40 JUNDI & HILL’s 1998 article, which discussed the neces
sity to study brooches with greater attention and to move beyond simple typological studies.
41 Stefanie Hoss aims to pursue this research further.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LUPA = picture database of antique stone monuments http://www.ubieratlupa.org
ALLASONJONES, L. 1988: ‘“Small finds” from turrets on Hadrian’s Wall’, in J. C. N. Coulston (ed.), Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers: Pro
ceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference, Oxford, 197–234
ALLASONJONES, L. 1995: ‘Sexing “small finds”’, in P.
Rush (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings, Aldershot, 22–32
ALLASONJONES, L. 2001: ‘Material culture and iden
tity’, in S. James & M. Millett (eds), Britons and Romans:
Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, York, 19–26 ALLASONJONES, L. 2005: Women in Roman Britain, York ALLASONJONES, L. 2009: ‘The small finds’, in A.
Rushworth (ed.), Housesteads Roman Fort – the Grand
est Station. Swindon, 430–88
ALLASONJONES, L. 2013: ‘Missing people, missing brooches’, in G. Grabherr, B. Kainrath & T. Schierl (eds), Relations Abroad: Brooches and Other Elements of Dress as Sources for Reconstructing Interregional Movement and Group Boundaries from the Punic Wars to the Decline of the Western Roman Empire. Proceed
ings of the International Conference from 27th–29th April 2011 in Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 23–33
ALLASONJONES, L. 2015: ‘Zoomorphic brooches: decora
tion or ideology?’, in S.R. Marzel & G. D. Stiebel (eds), Dress and Ideology: Fashioning Identity from Antiquity to the Present, London, 69–87
ALLISON, P. 2013: People and Spaces in Roman Military Bases, Cambridge
BALL, J. 2014: ‘Small finds and Roman battlefields: The process and impact of postbattle looting’, in H. Platts, C. Barron, J. Lundock, J. Pearce & J. Yoo (eds), TRAC 2013: Proceedings of the twentysecond annual Theoret
ical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 2013, Oxford, 90–104
BAYLEY, J. & BUTCHER, S. 2004: Roman Brooches in Britain: A Technological and Typological Study Base on the Richborough Collection, London
BISHOP, M. C. & COULSTON, J. C. N. 2006: Roman Milit
ary Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, Oxford
BÖHME, A. 1970: ‘Englische Fibeln aus den Kastellen Saalburg und Zugmantel’, Saalburg Jahrbuch 27, 5–20 BÖHME, A. 1972: ‘Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und
Zugmantel’, Saalburg Jahrbuch 29, 5–112
BUTCHER, S. 1977: ‘Enamels from Roman Britain’, in M.
R. Apted, R. GilyardBeer, A. D. Saunders & A. J. Taylor (eds), Ancient Monuments and their Interpretation: Es
says Presented to A. J. Taylor, London, 41–69
COLLINS, R. 2010: ‘Brooch use in the frontier from the 4th–5th centuries’, in R. Collins & L. AllasonJones (ed
s), Finds from the Frontier: Material Culture in the 4th–5th Centuries, Oakville, Conn., 64–77
COOL, H. E. M. 1983: A Study of the Roman Personal Or
naments Made of Metal, Unpubl. PhD thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff
COULSTON, J. C. N. 2004: ‘Military identity and personal selfidentity in the Roman army’, in L. de Ligt, E. A.
Hemelrijk & H. W. Singor (eds), Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspective, Amsterdam, 133–52
CRUMMY, N. 2007: ‘Brooches and the cult of Mercury’, Britannia 38, 225–30
ECKARDT, H. 2005: ‘The social distribution of Roman artefacts: the case of nail cleaners and brooches in Bri
tain’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 18, 139–60 FISCHER, T. 2012: Die Armee der Caesaren. Archäologie
und Geschichte, Regensburg
GECHTER, M. 1980: ‘Die Fibeln des Kastells Nieder
bieber’, Bonner Jahrbücher 180, 589–610
HARNECKER, H. & MYLO, D. 2011: Kalkriese 5: Die römischen Funde vom Oberesch. Die Schnitte 23 bis 39, Darmstadt
HEURGON, J. 1958: Le trésor de Ténès, Paris
HOSS, S. 2012: ‘The Roman military belt’, in M.L. Nosch (ed.), Wearing the Cloak: Dressing the Soldier in Roman times, Oxford, 29–44
IVLEVA, T. 2011: ‘British emigrants in the Roman Em
pire: complexities and symbols of ethnic identities’, in D. Mladenovič & B. Russell (eds), TRAC 2010: Pro
ceedings of the Twentieth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Oxford 2010, Oxford, 132–53 IVLEVA, T. 2012: Britons Abroad: The Mobility of Britons
and the Circulation of Britishmade Objects in the Ro
man Empire, Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Leiden, Leiden
JAMES, S. 2004: Excavations at DuraEuropos, 1928–1937.
Final Report VII: The Arms and Armour and other Military Equipment, Oxford
JILEK, S. & BREEZE, D. 2007: ‘The detritus of life: The contribution of small finds to understanding smaller mil
itary installations’, in R. Hingley & S. Willes (eds), Roman Finds: Context and Theory, Oxford, 199–214 JOHNS, C. 1996: The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic
and Classical Traditions, London
JUNDI, S. & HILL, J. D. 1998: ‘Brooches and identities in first century AD Britain: more than meets the eye?’, in C. Forcey, J. Hawthrone & R. Witcher (eds), TRAC 97:
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Nottingham 1997, Oxford, 125–37
KELLER, E. 1971: Die spätrömische Grabfunde in Süd
bayern, München
LUIK, M. 1996: Köngen – Grinario I: Topographie, Fund
stellenverzeichnis, ausgewählte Fundgruppen, Stuttgart MACKRETH, D. F. 2002: ‘Military brooches’, in G. Web
ster & J. Chadderton (eds), The Legionary Fortress at Wroxeter: Excavations by Graham Webster, 1955–85, London, 89–104
MACKRETH, D. F. 2011: Brooches in Late Iron Age and Roman Britain, Oxford
MCINTOSH, F. 2011: ‘Regional broochtypes in Roman Britain: evidence from northern England’, Archaeologia Aeliana, fifth series XL, 155–82
MCINTOSH, F. 2013: ‘The Wirral brooch – a rural and re
gional type’, in G. Grabherr, B. Kainrath & T. Schierl
(eds), Relations Abroad: Brooches and Other Elements of Dress as Sources for Reconstructing Interregional Movement and Group Boundaries from the Punic Wars to the Decline of the Western Roman Empire. Proceed
ings of the International Conference from 27th–29th April 2011 in Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 257–69
ROST, A. & WILBERSROST, S. 2012: Die Verteilung der Kleinfunde auf dem Oberesch in Kalkriese: Kartierung and Interpretation der römischen Militaria unter Ein
beziehung der Befunde, Darmstadt
ROTHE, U. 2013: ‘Die norischpannonische Tracht – gab es sie wirklich?’, in G. Grabherr, B. Kainrath & T. Schierl (eds), Relations Abroad: Brooches and Other Elements of Dress as Sources for Reconstructing Interregional Movement and Group Boundaries from the Punic Wars to the Decline of the Western Roman Empire. Proceed
ings of the International Conference from 27th–29th April 2011 in Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 34–48
RUSHWORTH, A. (ed.) 2009: Housesteads Roman Fort – the Grandest Station, Swindon
SIM, D. & KAMINSKI, J. 2012: Roman Imperial Armour:
The Production of Early Imperial Military Armour, Oxford
SNAPE, M. 1993: Roman Brooches from North Britain: A Classification and a Catalogue of Brooches from Sites on the Stanegate, Oxford
SUMNER, G. 2009: Roman Military Dress, Stroud
SWIFT, E. 2000: Regionality in Dress Accessories in the Late Roman West, Montagnac
SWIFT, E. 2011: ‘Personal ornament’, in L. AllasonJones (ed.), Artefacts in Roman Britain: Their Purpose and Use, Cambridge, 194–219
WAMSER, L. 1986: BiricianaWeissenburg zur Römerzeit.
KastellThermenRömermuseum, Stuttgart
WILBERSROST, S., UERPMANN, H.P., UERPMANN, M., GROSSKOPF, B. & TOLKSDORFLIENEMANN, E. 2007: Kalkriese 3: Interdisziplinäre Untersuchun
gen auf dem Oberesch in Kalkriese: archäologische Befunde und naturwissenschaftliche Begleitunter
suchungen, Mainz am Rhein
WILMOTT, T. 1997: Birdoswald: Excavations of a Roman Fort on Hadrian’s Wall and its Successor Settlements:
1987–92, London